[gnso-pednr-dt] Comments of draft final report
- To: PEDNR <gnso-pednr-dt@xxxxxxxxx>
- Subject: [gnso-pednr-dt] Comments of draft final report
- From: Alan Greenberg <alan.greenberg@xxxxxxxxx>
- Date: Tue, 7 Jun 2011 01:14:04 -0400
All of the comments relate to the section on recommendations.
Overall they look really good. I thought we had decided to re-order
them. Is that still to come on the next pass, or did I miss that we
are keeping the order?
At one point, we said we would include a line about there being no
need to synchronize implementation of all Recs. We know that some
will take longer and don't want to delay all for the slowest one. How
do we handle this in light of our statement that they are all inter-related?
Line 1201: I would replace "would like to put forward" just "puts forward".
Line 1212: It is unclear who we will provide feed back to on
implementation issues. The statement in this line is silent on it,
but the next sentence talks about advice to the GNSO Council. I would
have thought we would deal directly with staff. Going through the
GNSO Council (which almost implies that they would have to vote on
it) seems rather awkward.
Line 1255: Current reads "... and the domain must be renewable by the
RNHAE until the end of that period." Should we word it to say at
LEAST until the end. If we do not , it may be read as requiring that
it not be renewable after and that should be the registrars call, not
ours. Also note that the A in RNHAE is upper case.
Line 1258: The reference to restoring to the original DNS resolution
path. I vaguely recal that one of the comments said we should define
what we mean by original.
Line 1264: I would change "most" to "more".
Lines 1276/7: This sentence should eitherbe deleted or changed to
advice to the implementors.
Line 1387: "name" should be "Name".
Lines 1391/2: Need to be deleted since we decided on no exceptions.
Lines 1412/3: Do we need to add "or is renewed by the RNHaE"?
Unrelated to all of this, when we were talking about details for the
RGP implementation, Marika pointed us to words in the new gTLD draft
contract that says a specific RFP applies if the registry implements
the "Registry Grace Period (RGP)". Perhaps someone needs to tell the
new gTLD folks that it is "Redemption" not "Registry".